Viability- Capable of working, functioning or developing adequately.
A common theme amongst our readers, and readers of other websites, is the definition of “viable.” It is the key variable in MLB’s requirements for a new stadium site. The others being “aesthetically pleasing” and “owned by the city, leased to the team.” To tell you the truth, I can’t imagine a site in Oakland that wouldn’t be aesthetically pleasing, unless of course there was a giant football grandstand blocking out any of the cool views.
The Pro Oakland take is, “With all these options, something has to be viable.”
The San Jose spin is “If something really was viable they would be putting it out there to stand alone.”
I can see the logic of both perspectives. I have a different one. One of the three sites is not viable, one could be and the other I am not so sure about. With that in mind, let’s dive into our individual reviews of each site with the one I am sure about. Howard Terminal.
The strengths of this site are many. If the ballpark were built as originally suggested in the 2001 HOK study, there would be some breathtaking views of the San Francisco Bay, as you can see below. It could combine with the already under way regeneration at Jack London Square to create something Oakland doesn’t really have right now, a true entertainment district. This is the formula used in San Francisco, San Diego, Denver, etc.
So why do I say this site isn’t viable?
I, for one, would love spending summertime afternoons sometime in the next few years sitting in the bleachers, with a beer, watching ginormus ships make their way through the Oakland Harbor. I’d be watching the game except Crush Carter, Brett Wallace, Adrian Cardenas and Jemile Weeks have made the A’s offense so ridiculous that the A’s score 6 runs a game. Meanwhile the new big 5 of Trevor Cahill, Brett Anderson, Gio Gonzales, Vin Mazzarro and Josh Outman have silenced all the bats and the A’s are regularly running off 10 and 15 game win streaks.
A nice dream, for certain, but an unrealistic one for sure. And, unfortunately, this is exactly what Howard Terminal is. As Marine Layer has pointed out.
We can start to dig in by rehashing the 2001 HOK study. That study didn’t rule this site out, in fact it named this the fourth best site available, behind Uptown, the Coliseum Parking Lot and Fremont. The best aspects of the site were deemed to be it’s urban design potential and the speed with which it could be constructed (due to the fact that is already city owned). The reason it was ranked behind those other three sites was because it scored horribly on cost and site factors, and only mediocre in transportation.
The reality is that none of those things have changed. It still would be awesome from a design perspective. Land acquisition still would not be the long pole in the tent. But the negative factors are also still the same.
Even if we only considered the cost, that would be enough to sink this site. In 2001 the construction cost was estimated to be $517 Million. That is $600 Million in today’s dollars. I don’t see, and any sane person would agree, anyone investing $600 Million dollars in a baseball stadium in Oakland or San Jose.
But let’s consider the site factors as well. In order to turn Howard Terminal into a baseball utopia, the Port of Oakland would need to lose some container berths, or move them somewhere else in Oakland. This is expensive to do. But even more than the direct cost is the opportunity cost. Why mess with the City of Oakland’s economic engine? This is the fourth busiest port in the US. 99% of Northern California’s containerized goods pass through the port. Is it possible that building a baseball stadium here would even be a break even proposition for Oaktown? Probably not.
So let’s not waste anymore time rehashing old, cast off sites.
Let’s move forward and talk about sites that can keep the A’s in the Bay Area. There are two new sites to talk about. If we know that Howard Terminal is “not viable” we can use it as a sort of barometer. Stay tuned sports fans, we have two other sites to review… and they won’t be a waste of our time.
newballpark.org 
R.M.,
Would you also say that “viability” is in the eye of the beholder?
Jeff got a name change?
Oops! My bad Jeffrey. Thought Rhamesis wrote this piece; sorry brah!
In this situation, viability is a synonym for the A’s willingness to build on a particular site.
If they are not willing, then it’s not viable.
we will get into that… soon.
Remember, “Oakland is too close to San Francisco” Lew Wolff. I suppose this fact has ALWAYS made Oakland not “viable.” Following this logic, Oakland wasn’t viable back when Lew Wolff was “trying to build this ballpark in Oakland,” was it? I also remember Selig uttering these magic words,” The A’s moving to Oakland was a horrible mistake.” I remember the Blue Ribbon Commission set up by Selig to purposely run out the clock on the sale to pro Oakland buyers, per the agreement in the contract with the City of Oakland. Are you listening Senator Boxer, Senator Feinstein, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, Attorney General Jerry Brown and Mayor Ron Dellumns? These are great questions for Lew Wolff and Bud Selig. Also, Mr. Russo, you’ve got a bone to pick with San Jose if this all goes down as anticipated.
Wow. I didn’t even mention anything about distance form San Francisco. Maybe we should start a forum thread called “Navigator’s Non Sequitir Rants”
It’s hard for me to tell whether Nav’s posts are sincerely delusional, or calculatedly demagogic.
Maybe some of both?
Aren’t we talking about “viability” Jeff? Why are we pretending that Lew Wolff and Bud Selig think that ANYTHING in Oakland is “viable?” I’ve just listed some examples of what’s transpired over the years to get us to the place we find ourselves in at the momentum. Disregarding Lew Wolff’s anti-Oakland bias when we talk about “viability,” makes no sense. We can have the most viable and esthetically pleasing site in the World, but if Lew Wolff and Bud Selig continue on their anti-Oakland crusade nothing in Oakland will ever be found “viable.” Without addressing the 800 pound gorilla in the room, all the pretty renderings in the world wont mean a thing. Ask yourself this, after all that we know which has transpired in the past, will anything in Oakland be viewed as “viable” by Bud Selig and Lew Wolff? If the answer is NO, we may as well start opening up the legal briefs.
“Ask yourself this, after all that we know which has transpired in the past, will anything in Oakland be viewed as “viable” by Bud Selig and Lew Wolff? If the answer is NO, we may as well start opening up the legal briefs.”
.
Sounds like jolly good fun.
Who will due the suing, who will they sue, and what will be the complaint?
.
Or maybe I misread this. Maybe you’re talking about an exhibitionist lawyer fiddling with his underwear.
You are truly, truly delusional in a way that I can respect. Blinded by passion, but blind nonetheless. There is absolutely no grounds for a lawsuit and this particular post was about Howard Terminal and how it is not viable and has been known to be so since 2001.
That wasn’t really Bud Selig or Lew Wollf’s opinion. It is based on HOK’s study which found Fremont to be a superior site. Haven’t you been on here railing about how dumb an idea Fremont was?
Nav, could you learn to hit the “Reply” button if you’re actually replying to someone? You’re killing the thread continuity here.
Sorry Navigator. I’ll try to do better.
Are you the same “Jeffrey” which was calling the OFD site “non viable” when Marine Layer put up the original renderings for the Victory Court site? I went back over those older comments and it seems that you or some other “Jeffrey” was completely opposed to the Oakland Fire Training Site at Oak & 3rd.We happened to disagree on what’s “viable” and what isn’t.
Also, to say there are no grounds for a lawsuit when an organization like MLB purposely delays a vote on a possible pro Oakland ownership group just so that the current owner (Steve Schott at the time) isn’t forced to sell the team at a discount to local Oakland buyers as stated in the contract with the City of Oakland, is “delusional.” If you think that this team is just going to waltz right out of Oakland and into the hands of Chuck Reed and Larry Stone without a fight from the 25,000 (and growing) die hard Oakland Athletics fans, influential business leaders, and politicians without every stone being unturned to find out how we’ve gotten to this point, then you’re delusional. We will not lay down for San Jose interests.
Hey Navigator,
I had to go back read and it was me. My main point in those back and forth exchanges back then is my main point right now. My definition of “viable” is based on objectivity. Your definition is based on emotion. I mentioned that it had considerable challenges, that you should be admitting those challenges and explaining how they could be overcome and Oakland should be looking for a better site. I think if the plan is to stuff it up against the freeway like that… it is the very definition of “not viable.”
I have since done a lot of research myself on that site. And I noticed that in the City of Oakland’s presentation they came to the same conclusion I did about the site. I am working on a post about it, though I have already written about the site on athleticsnation in two posts. One called “It’s all about Culture” and another titled “How it Could Work in Oaktown.”
You can stop with 25,000 strong stuff. We all go and read the facebook page. We know that not everyone on there is die hard Oakland only booster. In fact, I am one of the 25,000 and I am a die hard A’s fan, but not so much an only in Oakland kind of guy. But you already knew that.
Jeffrey, I read your AN post on the OFD site. I noticed that on your parking identification map, the brand new 1100 space garage at Harrison and 2nd next to the Amtrak station is not included. Also, don’t forget about the underground garage under the Barnes & Noble store at JLS. I agree with placing the ballpark further back from the freeway and facing it more towards the Estuary. I believe the area where the OFD training site now exists is slated for parkland next to the Lake Merritt Channel. This site is definitely a winner. I mean, how could it not be with the name of Victory Court.
The parking identification map is not a big deal. As I said in that post, there are parking options that will work. The need for additional parking is still real though. The team will need parking for staff and premium ticket holders. The rest of us can use the garages in and around the neighborhood.